## Facts

- Chan Ian Saelee was indicted on federal drug charges, including importing opium allegedly concealed in candy-bar packages mailed from Thailand.
- The government retained a Postal Inspection Service forensic document analyst to compare Saelee’s hand-printing exemplars with hand printing on suspect package labels.
- The analyst concluded Saelee wrote one questioned label and was “probably” the writer of another.
- Saelee moved in limine to exclude the hand-printing comparison evidence, and the court held a Daubert hearing to determine admissibility.
- After initially offering ultimate authorship opinions, the government narrowed its proffer to testimony describing “similarities and differences” between the known and questioned writings and argued it could be admitted as lay opinion under Rule 701.
- The defense argued the proffer was specialized and therefore governed by Rule 702 and Daubert; the court agreed that Rule 702 applied.
- The government also argued the evidence was admissible as handwriting comparison for authentication under Rule 901.

## Issues

1. Whether a forensic document analyst’s testimony comparing hand printing on exemplars and questioned labels can be admitted as lay opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701.
2. Whether the testimony is admissible as expert evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert’s reliability requirements.
3. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 901’s authentication examples permit admission of handwriting comparison testimony without satisfying Rules 701 and 702.

## Decision

- The court granted Saelee’s motion in limine and excluded the hand-printing comparison testimony.
- The testimony was not admissible under Rule 701 because it was based on specialized knowledge within Rule 702.
- The testimony was not admissible under Rule 702 because the government failed to establish reliable principles and methods reliably applied under Daubert.
- Rule 901 did not independently authorize admission of the opinion testimony or relax Rule 702’s reliability requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 701 does not allow admission of opinions based on “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” that falls within Rule 702.
- Forensic document examination and handwriting/hand-printing comparison offered through a trained examiner is expert testimony governed by Rule 702 and subject to Daubert.
- Under Rule 702, the proponent bears the burden to show the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and that those methods were reliably applied to the case facts.
- Limiting a forensic examiner to describing “similarities and differences,” without stating an ultimate authorship conclusion, does not avoid Rule 702 when the comparison rests on specialized methodology.
- Rule 901 addresses authentication and identification but does not override the admissibility requirements for opinion testimony under Rules 701 and 702.

## Conclusion

The court excluded the government’s forensic hand-printing comparison evidence because it could not be recast as lay opinion under Rule 701 and, as expert testimony, the government did not prove reliability under Rule 702 and Daubert; Rule 901 did not provide an alternate path to admission.


United States v. Saelee, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (D. Alaska 2001)